• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Activist liberal SC judge whines about criticism

zendari

Banned
Supreme Court Justice Says He's Worried About Political Criticism


CHICAGO (AP) - Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer said Tuesday that rulings on difficult subjects like gay rights and the death penalty have left courts vulnerable to political attacks that are threatening judicial independence.

Breyer urged lawyers to help educate people about court responsibility to be an independent decision-maker.

"If you say seven or eight or nine members of the Supreme Court feel there's a problem ... you're right," he told the American Bar Association. "It's this edge on a lot of issues."

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who was speaking with Breyer, said: "The politics of judges is getting to be red hot." He said Supreme Court rulings on the Pledge of Allegiance and Ten Commandments have captured the public's interest and polarized Democrats and Republicans.

"There's nothing that's not on the table," former Solicitor General Theodore Olson said of the court's work, which this fall includes issues like abortion, capital punishment and assisted suicide.

Breyer said the nine-member court is focused on constitutional limits on major fights of the day. "We're sort of at the outer bounds. And we can't control politics of it, and I don't think you want us to try to control politics of it," he said.

Congressional leaders including House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, have criticized justices in recent months. DeLay was particularly critical of the court's refusal to stop Terri Schiavo's death and at a death penalty decision that cited international cases.

Breyer defended using overseas legal opinions as a guide only, adding, "It has hit a political nerve."

Breyer, Olson and Graham were discussing the future of courts on the final day of the ABA's annual meeting in Chicago.

Also Tuesday, the group was debating whether to endorse federal protection for journalists who refuse to reveal their sources to prosecutors. Passage of such a measure would authorize the organization to lobby Congress, where "shield law" proposals are pending.

Judicial independence has been a major theme at the meeting of the ABA, a 400,000-member group.

The group's policymaking board passed a resolution urging elected officials and others to support and defend judges. New group President Michael Greco of Boston said judges have faced physical threats, and threats of impeachment from Washington political leaders unhappy with court decisions.

"If we do not protect our courts, our courts cannot protect us," Greco said.

On another subject, Greco defended the ABA's role in checking the background of Supreme Court nominee John Roberts and other federal judicial nominees. The committee has spent the past two weeks reviewing Roberts' work on an appeals court and interviewing people who have worked with him.

"The ABA does not, and we will not, protect the interests of any political party or faction, nor the interests of any ideological or interest group," said Greco, who previously oversaw the judge review committee.

Breyer told the group that the retirement of Sandra Day O'Connor is a personal loss and loss for the nation.


Maybe he should quit legislating from the bench if he doesn't want to be criticized like a legislator. Or maybe he should uphold the US constitution instead of some foreign law. Or maybe he should resign because he has the knowledge of a quart of ice cream.
 
The Supreme Court should not be so politicized; he is correct in his analysis that criticism should not be applied to judges unless they are indeed not applying the guidelines entailed in the constitution.

On the two key issues he pointed out, rights for US citizens are not activist issues, but open for debate. Your analysis of his "Activist liberal" tendencies have little to no merit.
 
how does reminding people that judges do not, have never, and should never serve 'at the pleasure' of politicians constitute whining?

mewaits for you to claim that 'in this country majority rules'
 
I must have read a different article...I got that Breyer is saying that the politics of the supreme court are becoming more of a problem given the issues that they are dealing with. Nowhere did I see anything about stepping outside of judicial bounds, he is simply saying (correctly IMHO) that the issues the court is dealing with are very politically charged right now, and that is something that everyone needs to realize and potentially deal with.

Personally I think we have a serious problem when people like DeLay feel the need to complain about the Supreme Court. Either the court is behaving badly or DeLay and others don't really understand what the court is supposed to be doing. Given the fact that one of his complaints is the Terry Shiavo case, I'd say the latter is a more distinct possibility. But in either case, the court is becoming way too much of a political arena, something that isn't exactly ideal.
 
Originally posted by: zendari

Maybe he should quit legislating from the bench if he doesn't want to be criticized like a legislator. Or maybe he should uphold the US constitution instead of some foreign law. Or maybe he should resign because he has the knowledge of a quart of ice cream.

Hmmmm . . .

On the one hand, we have a man who has a Stanford BA, attended Oxford for Econ on a Marshall Scholarship, and went on to edit the Harvard Law Review during his tenure at that law school, before clerking for a Supreme Court justice. He went on to work in the anti-trust division of DoJ, then taught at Harvard Law School. He then worked as counsel for the Senate Judiciary Committee, followed by the United States Sentencing Commission. Nominated by a Democratic President to the Supreme Court, he was quickly confirmed by the bipartisan Judiciary Committee, with the only meaningful skepticism coming from a senior Democrat who questioned his pro-business stance. He has served as a Supreme Court justice for 11 years.

On the other, we have a teenager who believes the aforementioned man has the legal knowledge of a dairy dessert.

I'll side with the former, but thanks for playing!
 
Originally posted by: Stunt
The Supreme Court should not be so politicized; he is correct in his analysis that criticism should not be applied to judges unless they are indeed not applying the guidelines entailed in the constitution.

On the two key issues he pointed out, rights for US citizens are not activist issues, but open for debate. Your analysis of his "Activist liberal" tendencies have little to no merit.
You missed the part where he started citing overseas legal opinions. What a hack.
 
Actually the biggest problem for Breyer is that people ARE more aware and educated about what is going on in those chambers. People know that many decisions handed down are citing precident from other countries and in some cases the SC is intervening in places where they have no jurisdiction AT ALL (immigration for instance).

While it's true that many parts of the SCOTUS are overly politicized (like the nomination process for starters) the real problem for people like Breyer and Ginsburg is that they are being found out.
 
Originally posted by: zendari
Originally posted by: Stunt
The Supreme Court should not be so politicized; he is correct in his analysis that criticism should not be applied to judges unless they are indeed not applying the guidelines entailed in the constitution.

On the two key issues he pointed out, rights for US citizens are not activist issues, but open for debate. Your analysis of his "Activist liberal" tendencies have little to no merit.
You missed the part where he started citing overseas legal opinions. What a hack.

Without reading his decision, it is very difficult to know whether he is a hack or not. If his argument was legally based on legal opinions from outside the US, then indeed he may be a hack. If they were simply mentioned in passing, or in some less significant way, I see nothing wrong with that.
 
He's right. Politicians are attempting to turn the Courts from their Traditional role and to make them mere Political Tools. There is a distinct movement in the US that's akin to the end of the Roman Republic, destroy all vestiges of the Republic, bring them under the control of one man/Party.
 
Originally posted by: DonVito
Originally posted by: zendari

Maybe he should quit legislating from the bench if he doesn't want to be criticized like a legislator. Or maybe he should uphold the US constitution instead of some foreign law. Or maybe he should resign because he has the knowledge of a quart of ice cream.

Hmmmm . . .

On the one hand, we have a man who has a Stanford BA, attended Oxford for Econ on a Marshall Scholarship, and went on to edit the Harvard Law Review during his tenure at that law school, before clerking for a Supreme Court justice. He went on to work in the anti-trust division of DoJ, then taught at Harvard Law School. He then worked as counsel for the Senate Judiciary Committee, followed by the United States Sentencing Commission. Nominated by a Democratic President to the Supreme Court, he was quickly confirmed by the bipartisan Judiciary Committee, with the only meaningful skepticism coming from a senior Democrat who questioned his pro-business stance. He has served as a Supreme Court justice for 11 years.

On the other, we have a teenager who believes the aforementioned man has the legal knowledge of a dairy dessert.

I'll side with the former, but thanks for playing!

If only the poor guy's CV was a little shorter, this would be near-sig material.
 
Which legislation was passed or voted for based on "overseas legal opinions" and not following the US Constitution?

Btw, I only see one hack in this thread 🙂
 
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Actually the biggest problem for Breyer is that people ARE more aware and educated about what is going on in those chambers. People know that many decisions handed down are citing precident from other countries and in some cases the SC is intervening in places where they have no jurisdiction AT ALL (immigration for instance).

While it's true that many parts of the SCOTUS are overly politicized (like the nomination process for starters) the real problem for people like Breyer and Ginsburg is that they are being found out.

Precedence from other countries is nothing new and it is in fact part of the US Justice system.The whole English speaking world uses Precendents from each other, it's just part of English Common Law. The big problem here is that Washington is filled with Morons who have no idea how things work, but garn sarnit they gonna fix it!
 
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Originally posted by: Stunt
Which legislation was passed or voted for based on "overseas legal opinions" and not following the US Constitution?

Btw, I only see one hack in this thread 🙂
Google and 15 seconds of your time.... Doesn't take long to find this. Breyer openly advocates using foreign law to set precident.
So...
Originally posted by: Stunt
Which legislation was passed or voted for based on "overseas legal opinions" and not following the US Constitution?
 
Originally posted by: Stunt
Which legislation was passed or voted for based on "overseas legal opinions" and not following the US Constitution?

Ironically, in Small v. United States, Clarence Thomas argued in favor of honoring foreign prosecutions in the context of prosecuting felons in possession of guns. Surely this would be "judicial activism" within the purview of Zendari's philosophies, but I imagine he'll find a way to support it. What a world!

 
Seems more like the usual whining from the Rightwing about actually having an independent judiciary, rather than the lapdog they really want...
 
Is this sort of mindset common in the rest of the world? ie. using US ideals to form laws?

I know California is a leader in environmental concerns and countries base their laws on these standards...is this a similar idea?
 
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Actually the biggest problem for Breyer is that people ARE more aware and educated about what is going on in those chambers. People know that many decisions handed down are citing precident from other countries and in some cases the SC is intervening in places where they have no jurisdiction AT ALL (immigration for instance).

While it's true that many parts of the SCOTUS are overly politicized (like the nomination process for starters) the real problem for people like Breyer and Ginsburg is that they are being found out.

And abortion. I suppose he's just another elitist liberal who thinks he's above criticism from Congress and the public.
 
Originally posted by: Stunt
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Originally posted by: Stunt
Which legislation was passed or voted for based on "overseas legal opinions" and not following the US Constitution?

Btw, I only see one hack in this thread 🙂
Google and 15 seconds of your time.... Doesn't take long to find this. Breyer openly advocates using foreign law to set precident.
So...
Originally posted by: Stunt
Which legislation was passed or voted for based on "overseas legal opinions" and not following the US Constitution?

Oh you said legislation.... missed that. Well... If our congress passes a piece of legislation, it doesn't matter where the idea came from. Once it's passed by congress it's United States law, deliberated and passed by representitives duly elected by the people.

If a court judgement is rendered based on foreign legislation or court cases then the entire process and point of representative government kind of flies out the window.
 
Zendari is the worst kind of poster here. No insght, just name calling. His/her politcal buzzword to word ratio is like 1:1 and it's mostly just attacks without merit. He/she fits in well with the rest of the Rush/Hannity zombies.

elitist liberal

legislating from the bench

What a hack.

knowledge of a quart of ice cream.

What are you, a parrot of Republican talking points? Can you think for yourself?
 
Maybe he should quit legislating from the bench if he doesn't want to be criticized like a legislator. Or maybe he should uphold the US constitution instead of some foreign law. Or maybe he should resign because he has the knowledge of a quart of ice cream.

Here I will highlight why foreign law was stated "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"
See if you can guess where that is from and if you still can't figure it out it is already in quotes which should make it easy to google.
 
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Originally posted by: Stunt
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Originally posted by: Stunt
Which legislation was passed or voted for based on "overseas legal opinions" and not following the US Constitution?

Btw, I only see one hack in this thread 🙂
Google and 15 seconds of your time.... Doesn't take long to find this. Breyer openly advocates using foreign law to set precident.
So...
Originally posted by: Stunt
Which legislation was passed or voted for based on "overseas legal opinions" and not following the US Constitution?

Oh you said legislation.... missed that. Well... If our congress passes a piece of legislation, it doesn't matter where the idea came from. Once it's passed by congress it's United States law, deliberated and passed by representitives duly elected by the people.

If a court judgement is rendered based on foreign legislation or court cases then the entire process and point of representative government kind of flies out the window.

I must have been sleeping in my civics class...but my understanding is that the Supreme Court is not subordinate to Congress or the people. They have their function, which can include striking down legislation made by "representitives duly elected by the people". We don't live in an unlimited democracy, remember? I get the feeling a lot of criticism of the court comes from a misunderstanding of this idea.

Now, as far as foreign law goes, I still have seen no proof that the decision was made because of a foreign law or case. I see evidence to suggest such a case or ruling was mentioned in the SC ruling, but that is not the same thing.
 
Originally posted by: DonVito
Originally posted by: zendari

Maybe he should quit legislating from the bench if he doesn't want to be criticized like a legislator. Or maybe he should uphold the US constitution instead of some foreign law. Or maybe he should resign because he has the knowledge of a quart of ice cream.

Hmmmm . . .

On the one hand, we have a man who has a Stanford BA, attended Oxford for Econ on a Marshall Scholarship, and went on to edit the Harvard Law Review during his tenure at that law school, before clerking for a Supreme Court justice. He went on to work in the anti-trust division of DoJ, then taught at Harvard Law School. He then worked as counsel for the Senate Judiciary Committee, followed by the United States Sentencing Commission. Nominated by a Democratic President to the Supreme Court, he was quickly confirmed by the bipartisan Judiciary Committee, with the only meaningful skepticism coming from a senior Democrat who questioned his pro-business stance. He has served as a Supreme Court justice for 11 years.

On the other, we have a teenager who believes the aforementioned man has the legal knowledge of a dairy dessert.

I'll side with the former, but thanks for playing!
Bush graduated from Yale and was governor of Texas.

Shall we all believe that anyone in here without those same or better credentials is making useless, unknowledgeable posts?

 
I don't care what education people have, it's all in what they have to offer and proven track record.
I'm not a big fan of Bush's.
 
Back
Top